Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As I had said before, I could go either way on the Creation/Evolution issue. Personally I don't care how God did it, but as we know, he created everything. I think both theories could indeed be true as long as they don't exclude God.

If I had to choose, i'd just go for what the Saints say about the issue.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
88Devin12 said:
As I had said before, I could go either way on the Creation/Evolution issue. Personally I don't care how God did it, but as we know, he created everything. I think both theories could indeed be true as long as they don't exclude God.
I believe most people here take issue with the fundamentalist type of Creation that is inherent to the Protestant view. Not creation itself. All Christians have to believe that God created everything to remain a Christian. It's in our Dogma. However, How he did created is surely a mystery and If science can give us clues to the mystery, than that is fine. It's when science or scientists start to form a Godless religion that leaves a Creator out of the picture. Than as a Christian one should definitely voice there opinion.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
I believe most people here take issue with the fundamentalist type of Creation that is inherent to the Protestant view. Not creation itself. All Christians have to believe that God created everything to remain a Christian. It's in our Dogma. However, How he did created is surely a mystery and If science can give us clues to the mystery, than that is fine.
I believe you are absolutely correct up to this point.

It's when science or scientists start to form a Godless religion that leaves a Creator out of the picture. Than as a Christian one should definitely voice there opinion.
You may have science confused with Scientology. Science is not nor can it ever be a godless religion, or even a monotheistic or polytheistic one.

Yet again, science not only does leave a Creator out of the picture, it must do so. It is not within the realm of science to study the supernatural. A ruler cannot measure one's weight.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
ytterbiumanalyst said:
You may have science confused with Scientology. Science is not nor can it ever be a godless religion, or even a monotheistic or polytheistic one.

Yet again, science not only does leave a Creator out of the picture, it must do so. It is not within the realm of science to study the supernatural. A ruler cannot measure one's weight.
Religion makes assumptions into the realm of science and nature the moment it states that man is a creation. Religion is dealing with the material world at that point and not the supernatural. Religion than has stepped over the line that you stated. Science therefore does the same thing when it makes assumptions about how human life enters the picture at the point of genesis. Science doesn't believe in the supernatural as you suggest because it is unscientific, Therefore limiting it's assumptions to what science does know. The material world. It looks for answers based on what it does know and won't stop until it can completely explain how life began without a supernatural creator. Since science hasn't yet found out how genesis has accrued, it forms a religion because it points to a direction that has not yet bin proven. It becomes a religion or belief system the moment it ventures into the unknown. Lets face it. The moment science can explain life to it's fullest. Christianity will not exist. Christians are fearful of an outcome without a god while Science is fearful that a god does exist and is trying to disprove a creator. 
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
jnorm888 said:
But if you don't have the whole skeleton then you will always have "imagination" involved.
"Imagination"?  This makes it sound as though Paleontologists and Paleobiologists just make things up when they don't complete specimens.  :-\  How much do you know about how serious paleontologists like Jack Horner, who teaches at Montana State in Bozeman, is curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies and is one of the leading lights in the field, find, study and work with fossils?
http://mtprof.msun.edu/Spr2004/horner.html 

Ebor
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
Christians are fearful of an outcome without a god while Science is fearful that a god does exist and is trying to disprove a creator. 
::)

Not all I think.  Just for another data point, there is the Revd. Dr. John Polkinghorne who is an Anglican priest and a scientist being a particle physicist.
http://www.polkinghorne.net/

Ebor
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
::)

Not all I think.  Just for another data point, there is the Revd. Dr. John Polkinghorne who is an Anglican priest and a scientist being a particle physicist.
http://www.polkinghorne.net/

Ebor
The answer came to me yesterday in the form of an unlikely creature. I was standing by the ocean and a medium size horseshoe crab exited the water near my feet. I thought to myself that if a creature that out dates the dinosaurs by 100 million years was left behind by natural selection. What are we to say about this theory? ;)

http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/evo.html 
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
The answer came to me yesterday in the form of an unlikely creature. I was standing by the ocean and a medium size horseshoe crab exited the water near my feet. I thought to myself that if a creature that out dates the dinosaurs by 100 million years was left behind by natural selection. What are we to say about this theory? ;)

http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/evo.html 
Sorry, I don't quite follow your line of thought. 

Was it 'left behind' or is the Horseshoe Crab perfect in its niche and God wanted them to continue?  Some things don't need improvement or change; they're just fine as they are. 

Ebor
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
Sorry, I don't quite follow your line of thought. 

Was it 'left behind' or is the Horseshoe Crab perfect in its niche and God wanted them to continue?  Some things don't need improvement or change; they're just fine as they are. 

Ebor
This creature hasn't evolved under the Natural selection process. Doesn't that speak volumes?
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
Lets face it. The moment science can explain life to it's fullest. Christianity will not exist. Christians are fearful of an outcome without a god while Science is fearful that a god does exist and is trying to disprove a creator. 
Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.
 

EofK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
Springfield, MO
ytterbiumanalyst said:
{...}science exists to discover why things are the way they are.
Not to nitpick, but I've thought of it more as science discovers how things are, not so much why.  I'd say the church is more interested in the why.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
This creature hasn't evolved under the Natural selection process. Doesn't that speak volumes?
You've provided a pretty good definition of the Law of Natural Selection, but on what basis do you conclude that natural selection has not taken place? How many observations and experiments have you made with the horseshoe crab? Have you studied different populations in different waters and compared their organs to see how each has or has not specialised to its environment? Try a few of those before you dismiss a scientific law so easily.

If you can prove that natural selection does not occur as we think it does, I think you've got a Nobel Prize on your hands. If not, then the Law of Natural Selection is correct. Science isn't afraid of being wrong; in fact, we learn more when we're wrong than when we're right. Personally, if I had to make a choice, I'd much rather go with the group that doesn't claim to know everything. But, like I said, I don't have to choose between science and religion. My religion does not give an opinion on scientific theories; we are free to observe the world and hypothesize as to how it all works together without fear of Purgatory.
 

EofK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
Springfield, MO
Just to offer another unsolicited two cents, who's to say that every creature evolves at the same pace as every other creature?  If an animal has evolved enough that it can sufficiently find food, shelter, and a mate then why should it need to evolve any further?  In the instance of the horseshoe crab would it be fair to say that it's reached a comfort zone?  I wouldn't say that the horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of evolution but if it's not being challenged I wouldn't see a reason for it to further evolve. 
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
EofK said:
Not to nitpick, but I've thought of it more as science discovers how things are, not so much why.  I'd say the church is more interested in the why.
I can see your point, but by why I don't mean "the reason for their existence." I mean rather "the reason this system and that one work together." For example, science discovers how and why the circulatory system of the human body provides oxygen to the muscles. How it does this is by loading red blood cells with oxygen and squeezing them through capillaries. Why it does this is so that far-flung cells continue to function properly.

However, there is another aspect, to which I believe you're alluding: the question of the existence. "Why do I have a heart?" can be answered in a merely physical, scientific way, as above, or it can be answered in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical is indeed the realm of literature, religion, and philosophy.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
EofK said:
Just to offer another unsolicited two cents, who's to say that every creature evolves at the same pace as every other creature?
Charles Darwin. Every population evolves every generation; now a generation can indeed be a few hours or a few decades, depending on the creature.

If an animal has evolved enough that it can sufficiently find food, shelter, and a mate then why should it need to evolve any further?  In the instance of the horseshoe crab would it be fair to say that it's reached a comfort zone?  I wouldn't say that the horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of evolution but if it's not being challenged I wouldn't see a reason for it to further evolve. 
Of course the modern horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of its evolution. This generation of horseshoe crabs is better suited to its parents' environment than its parents were, and the next generation will be even better suited to the conditions this generation has experienced. That's the way natural selection works.

So, yes, you are absolutely correct in that a creature who can find food, shelter, and a mate in its environment is suited to its environment, and it will live. A creature who cannot will not live or pass on its genes. This is the process of natural selection; creatures are selected based on their ability to survive and reproduce. If the horseshoe crab can do so easily, those genes will be passed on; if the next generation can also do these things easily, their genes will be passed on. All three generations, then, will likely look very similar, because in this case speciation was not necessary for survival. Lack of speciation, however, is not equivalent to lack of natural selection.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
ytterbiumanalyst said:
I can see your point, but by why I don't mean "the reason for their existence." I mean rather "the reason this system and that one work together." For example, science discovers how and why the circulatory system of the human body provides oxygen to the muscles. How it does this is by loading red blood cells with oxygen and squeezing them through capillaries. Why it does this is so that far-flung cells continue to function properly.

However, there is another aspect, to which I believe you're alluding: the question of the existence. "Why do I have a heart?" can be answered in a merely physical, scientific way, as above, or it can be answered in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical is indeed the realm of literature, religion, and philosophy.
Are you saying we have a choice?
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
Are you saying we have a choice?
As to whether we have a heart? Metaphysically, yes, it's entirely possible to be a heartless person. Scientifically, perhaps; depends on whether than artificial heart works out as promised. See here: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4444.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
This creature hasn't evolved under the Natural selection process. Doesn't that speak volumes?
How do you personally know that it hasn't 'evolved under the Natural selection process"? Are you trained in Marine Biology?  On what basis do you make that statement please?  The site you linked to says in part:

"The evolution of the horseshoe crab extends back far before the dawn of human civilization, before the dinosaurs, before flowering plants... back to the era in our planet's history when visible life first appeared."

So I do not understand where you get the idea that the Horseshoe Crab is 'exempt' and thus a proof against Evolution.

Ebor
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
ytterbiumanalyst said:
As to whether we have a heart? Metaphysically, yes, it's entirely possible to be a heartless person. Scientifically, perhaps; depends on whether than artificial heart works out as promised. See here: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4444.
Nice detour . ;)
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
EofK said:
Just to offer another unsolicited two cents, who's to say that every creature evolves at the same pace as every other creature?  If an animal has evolved enough that it can sufficiently find food, shelter, and a mate then why should it need to evolve any further?  In the instance of the horseshoe crab would it be fair to say that it's reached a comfort zone?  I wouldn't say that the horseshoe crab is the pinnacle of evolution but if it's not being challenged I wouldn't see a reason for it to further evolve. 
That is what I meant when I suggested that the Horseshoe Crab is fitted for its niche in the ecosystem.l   :)

Ebor
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.

Ebor
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Demetrios G. said:
Nice detour . ;)
Thank you. One always needs a bit of levity in a debate such as this.

Ebor said:
My apologies for posting without reading all of the thread and thus repeating what Ytterb. and EofK covered so well.
No apology needed; "hot" topics like this have so many new posts that it becomes very difficult to read all of them in time to respond.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
How do you personally know that it hasn't 'evolved under the Natural selection process"? Are you trained in Marine Biology?  On what basis do you make that statement please?  The site you linked to says in part:

"The evolution of the horseshoe crab extends back far before the dawn of human civilization, before the dinosaurs, before flowering plants... back to the era in our planet's history when visible life first appeared."

So I do not understand where you get the idea that the Horseshoe Crab is 'exempt' and thus a proof against Evolution.

Ebor
I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
I don't know. I'm just a dumb Greek hick, But if something is traced back to when visible signs of life first appeared than there might be more here than meets the eye.
Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.  And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Ebor said:
Reading a bit more on the site you linked to has more information
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/evo/paleo/paleo.html

It reads to me something like saying that the history of a family stretches back to before there were large cities.  That doesn't mean that the people of *now* were the same back then, but that there were ancestors, that the people of today are descended from those who lived in small settlements.  And if one of them lives in a small village, does that mean that he/she hasn't 'descended'?

Ebor
It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab. ;)
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
It doesn't say family, is says horseshoe crab. ;)
I am quite aware of what the linked page says.  I've read it more then once carefully.  I was attempting to draw a comparison, a paralllel example as it were of the group in a larger scheme that is the Horseshoe Crab and a group in the larger mass of humanity.

Ebor
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Demetrios G. said:
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor

 

Peleg

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
peleg.smugmug.com
This ridiculous notion of creating a "Christian version" of everything that's already been done makes Christianity laughable. Please, for the sake of the Gospel, let's have Christian artists and inventors who create real, original works--not copycats. The world will hate us; Christ Himself said so. But please, if they will hate us, let him hate us because we are followers of Christ, and not because we are thieves.
Amen and amen!!!  Very well said! ;D  Frank Schaeffer deals w/ this issue in his book Sham Pearls for Real Swine.
 

Ziggernaut

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.
Christ is Risen!

Being neither a scientist nor a theologian, and somewhat adept at putting my foot in my mouth, so to speak, I would just venture to suggest here that while science isn't out to prove anything, there are very probably certain scientists who, because of their fallen human nature, try to use science to do just that--prove something, that is.  I'm sure the same would apply to theologians too.  Not all scientists, unfortunately, are as objective as they might be and, like so very many of us, may have agendas they are not entirely consciously aware of--that they would admit to, anyway.

Just my humble penny's-worth.

God Bless,
Jeff

 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Wow. If your religion is so fragile that it can be rendered irrelevant by a scientific theory, then I don't want your religion, thank you.

Science isn't out to prove anything; science exists to discover why things are the way they are. Beginning from the assumption you're trying to prove is circular reasoning, not science.
From your mouth to God's ears! Very true, IMHO. Science never aims at "proving" anything. It can, and often does, disprove - of course. Yet, so far, nobody has disproved the theory of biological evolution; to do that, one must show that genes do not exist (but they do), or that genes do not mutate (but they do), or that spatial separation of two populations does not lead to the establishment of mating preferences (but it does), etc. etc. etc.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Demetrios G. said:
The chances that evolution has formed all that you see in the world are similar to the chances that a tornado can shift all the debris too form a 747 after it passes through.
Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Ebor said:
It's a catchy line, but that's all it is. I've read and heard similar things before. What does it really mean, if anything?  On what real data, on what collected and calculated numbers is it based?

Invoking "chances" of something happening is getting into the field of Mathematics.  There are mathematicians on this forum who perhaps will be willing to bring their knowledge.

Ebor
My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
LakaYaRabb said:
Science has not and cannot determine what constitues a human being. Why? Because science cannot prove the existence of the soul. Science takes a very materialistic very of the human being. They ask questions like "How big is his brain? How tall was he? What was the shape of his skull". Last time I checked, Christianity does not consider materialism as a the definitive qualifier for what makes a human being human.

Also regarding "ensoulment", God created man in His Image and Likeness. Of Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals are our biological ancestors, but didn't have a soul, then God would have inserted a soul into an pre-existing animal species. Lame.

Bottom line: If Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals aren't human, then they were animals without a soul. IMHO, they were less advanced in skills and technology, but were still humans with a soul.
But where do we go from here? What are you implying? Yes, science cannot define or study soul, and it doesn't do it. Yes, scientifically speaking, we are absolutely unable to say, just who was this first owner of a "truly human" soul. So... what?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Heorhij said:
My thoughts exactly. Ebor, I am sorry that I have replied to Demetrios G. (above), not having noticed that you already had done it so well.
Please don't apologize.  I really  appreciate the back up on this.  The phrase is, imho, just silly.  It sounds like it means something, but there's not solid fact or numbers.  All it would seem to mean is "I don't like the idea of evolution. I can't cite solid data, so I'll toss off the idea of unlikely (and untestable) odds."
???

Real Science has Real numbers and real data with meaning that can be checked.

Ebor
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Heorhij said:
Ah, but that's a very common mistake. Evolution is not a game of dice. There is only an element of chance in it, but overall it is very "deterministic."
Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Demetrios G. said:
Well, it's that element of chance that it could be false, that keeps you around. No? If it was proven than you wouldn't be here.
Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean?  ???
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
PeterTheAleut said:
Maybe the beer I've just consumed has dulled my senses, but what the heck is this supposed to mean?  ???
Well, I haven't had any beer and can't make sense of that post either.  Perhaps the poster could elaborate on what he is trying to say?

Ebor
 
Top